The current media attention being given to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, more commonly known as NASA, led me to consider how and what Americans think about space exploration.
NASA programs, and NASA in general have a fascinating brand identity because it seems to have a general appeal; people think positive thoughts about NASA. However, unlike many brands, they're not really selling a product and they're thought of differently by different generations. Also, as a government agency, their public relations and marketing is important, but not as key as it is for private industry.
I'm too young to have experienced what I consider the golden age of space exploration, the space race of the 1960's, but I still have a sense of what it meant to Americans. Still, because today's youth didn't experience the excitement of the first man on the moon as it happened, instead learning of it in history books, younger generations have a different perception of what the space programs mean. To young American's astronauts and space exploration are largely something to be taken for granted, accepted as "nifty," but not a truly thrilling subject.
Granted, NASA is far from the only brand name that suffers from a generation gap. However, it seems that for NASA, as an agency that is meant to perform a public service and also being on the cutting edge, the generation separation has more significance. How are NASA researchers, scientists, and astronauts going to continue to be innovative and continue to widen the bounds of human knowledge and experience without enthusiasm from the youth?
I think the recent highlight of the Apollo missions, among other space exploration milestones, may pique the interest of a few. I don't think that's enough though, considering America's collective attention span. Maybe NASA needs to put a few pennies of it's budget into the marketing side and try to make space exciting again. After all, image is still important, even if you managed to put a man on the moon.
History of the NASA logo: http://www.logoblog.org/nasa-logo.php
When most Americans today hear the word “clown,” if they’re lucky they think of Ronald McDonald or Bozo. If not, images of demented and horrifically disturbing clown characterizations such as those in the movie It come to mind. Many people claim to be terrified by clowns, even though they don’t even know the official name for their irrational fear. There’s also the connotation created by local party clowns who may be untrained and unwanted at a children’s birthday party.
What has twisted the image of a clown into commercialism and fright?
Clowning has a long history and tradition, but in recent decades the image of a clown has morphed and been warped. Clowns such as Emmett Kelly and Lou Jacobs are a bygone breed. They were clowns of the great tent-circuses known as “mud shows.” However, these are not the clowns that today’s public recognizes.
Modern clowns wear less make up that does not hide their faces, but simply accentuates and exaggerates their features. They engage their audience in a way that pokes fun, but are not seeking to be threatening or humiliating to the spectators. In my view, truly good clowning uplifts people. The clown is the butt of the joke and makes their audience triumphant through the clown’s bumbling failures and successes. A clown pokes fun at humanity and general and rather than claiming victims who become the object of laugher, invites the spectators to laugh at themselves.
Good clowning can certainly be an art, though a vastly underrated one. Circus giants such as Ringling Bros. and Cirque du Soleil are continuing the clown tradition, but adapting it to the needs of their productions. Small outfits such as Vermont youth circus, Circus Smirkus are bringing young people into the artform.
The public paradigm about clowns may be a difficult one to change, but if shows such as the Greatest Show on Earth continue to monitor and craft the interaction the clown performers have with the public, ideas may change, even if it’s only one person at a time.
